Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 16, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of June 16, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2 and 4-6 are canceled, and claims 1, 3 and 7-8 are pending for examination.
Priority
With the amendment to the claims as provided February 17, 2026, it is understood that the present claims are supported by the parent 17/485,620 and priority extends back to September 27, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn due to the amendments of June 16, 2026 removing the indicated new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayden (US 2021/0288300) in view of Japan 2009-009907 (hereinafter ‘907), EITHER Seung et al (US 2013/0089782) OR Brantner (US 2010/0032001), and further in view of Xie et al (US 2007/0110655) and Hwang et al (US 2014/0045099), EITHER alone OR further in view of KR 10-2008-0011924 (hereinafter ‘924)
Claim 1: Gayden teaches a method for fabricating a cathode film of a lithium ion battery by plasma spraying (note 0001, 0052-0053, 0023). A substate can be provided, such as a metal foil current collector (note 0041). Particles for the plasma spraying are formed (note 0041), where the particles can be made with lithium compound such as LiCoO2 as desired by claim 1, and also a material such as graphite, and as well a non-lithium metal can also be used to form the particles/powder (composite powder) (note 0029, 0036, 0037, claims 1). The composite powder can include metal particles of size of various nanometer sizes, and the active material size can be up to 20 microns (note 0032). The plasma spraying onto the substrate includes exposing the powder to a plasma flame/stream in an atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) process, where the APS can use a gas flow of nitrogen or argon, where the powder would be heated and activated and form a porous film on the substrate and thus form a porous cathode film, layer on the substrate (note 0052, 0041, 0023).
(A) As to the substrate consisting essentially of iron or chromium, with a vacuum coated layer of silver, onto which the powder applied, Gayden describes that the substrate can be a metal foil current collector, for example (note 0041).
‘907 describes a current collector and electrode that can be used for a lithium battery (note pages 2-3, translation), where the current collector can have a thin film substate of metal such as stainless steel (so considered a layer containing iron, or also a layer containing chromium, as stainless steel understood to be an iron alloy also containing chromium) and a conductor layer formed on the surface thereof, where the conductor layer can be applied in a vacuum process (vacuum vapor deposition) and can be gold or platinum or broadly simply metal (note pages 2-3, translation). An electrode layer is applied to the current collector, where the electrode layer can include lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2). ‘907 also describes other metals/alloys can be used for the substrate, noting aluminum, aluminum alloy, nickel and nickel alloy (note page 2, translation).
Seung describes a current collector and electrode that can be used for a lithium battery (note 0039-0043), where the current collector can have a metal substrate, such as stainless steel (so considered a layer containing iron, or also a layer containing chromium, as stainless steel understood to be an iron alloy also containing chromium), and be coated with silver (so would have a layer of silver on the metal substrate) (note 0043). An electrode layer is applied to the current collector, where the electrode layer can include LiCoO2, etc. (note 0042, 0044).
Brantner describes thin film battery, which can include a current collector/barrier layer 120 over which is provided an electrode/cathode, where the cathode 130 can be made of LiCoO2), and an anode comprising lithium (so considered a lithium battery) (note figure 1, 0029-0030), where the current collector can be made of a lower layer/sub layer which can be considered a “substrate” of the current collector, that can be made from chromium (with no other material required so can be considered “consisting of’ or “consisting essentially of “ chromium) (note 0030) and an upper layer/sub layer of silver formed over the chromium layer (note 0030). The lower layer/substrate could also be nickel (note 0030). The upper layer could also be platinum or gold (note 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden EITHER (1) to use as the substrate a current collector with a stainless steel substrate and a vacuum coated layer of silver on the stainless steel metal substrate such that the cathode material will be applied to the vacuum coated silver layer as suggested by ‘907 and Seung with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because Gayden indicates using a current collector substrate, and ‘907 indicates that current collector substrates for similar lithium battery use with applied electrode includes such substrates with an stainless steel substrate and vacuum coated layer of platinum or gold or metal in general onto which the electrode material is applied, and Seung teaches that current collectors for similar lithium battery materials can also be stainless steel and coated with the metal of silver, thus suggesting that the general metal described by ‘907 that can be vapor deposited, would also be inclusive of silver. Furthermore, the stainless steel substrate can be considered a substrate “consisting essentially of” iron or chromium to the extent claimed, because as discussed in MPEP 2111.03 (III),
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.").
Here, there is no indication that having additional material in the substrate materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, where as noted by original claim 2, the substrate can also be alloys of iron or chromium. Therefore, the phrase “consisting essentially of” has been treated as “comprising”, and the stainless steel described by ‘907 and Seung is understood to be an iron comprising material and also a chromium comprising material.
OR (2) to modify Gayden to use as the substrate a current collector with a substrate consisting essentially of chromium and a vacuum coated layer of silver on the chromium substrate such that the cathode material will be applied to the vacuum coated silver layer as suggested by ‘907 and Brantner with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because Gayden indicates using a current collector substrate, and ‘907 indicates that current collector substrates for similar lithium battery use with applied electrode includes such substrates with nickel substrate and vacuum coated layer of platinum or gold or metal in general onto which the electrode material is applied, and Brantner teaches that current collectors for similar lithium battery materials with applied electrodes can also be chromium (and be “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of” chromium as the only material required) as well as nickel and coated with the metal of silver as well as platinum or gold, thus suggesting that the general metal described by ‘907 that can be vapor deposited, would also be inclusive of silver.
(B) As to the forming of the composite powder including a processing of spheroidizing granulation as well,
Xie describes that when thermal spraying (which would include plasma spraying), it is desired to form spherical powders with high density, which improves flowability of the powder, and good flowability leads to consistency of coating quality (note 0008, 0009). It is described to take formed powder material, and in flight heat and melt the powder material in a plasma apparatus, then cool the molten droplets under free fall conditions and collect the resulting powder, where the provides smooth spheroidized powder have more consistent flow (note figures 1, 4, 0011-0012, 0014). It is described that the formed particles can be 5-100 microns in size (note 0022), and since the powders are to be usable for thermal spray application (note 0005), it is understood that this would be a good particle size, and further as to the particle size being the diameter of the particles, it would further be understood that this would be at least suggested to use this size as a diameter, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the particles are to be spherical in shape and thus the size across, for example, in each area would be the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907 and EITHER Seung OR Brantner to further take the formed particles from Gayden and treat them with the spheroidizing granulation process of Xie with an expectation of providing a desirably more flowable powder since Gayden in going on to plasma spray the powders (thermal spray) and Xie teaches the desire to provide spheroidizing granulation treatment to powders to be used for thermal spraying to get desirably better powder flow, and further this treatment would give generally spherical particles/granules since it is indicated that the process is to spheroidize and one wants a spherical shape for better flowability. As to the diameter of the particles, Xie would indicate a powder size/diameter for thermal spraying of 5-100 microns, indicating the expectation that the spheroidized particles would be usable in the process of Gayden.
(C) As to the plasma spraying conditions of a gas flow of argon and nitrogen uniformly mixed to obtain a plasma flame, with a spraying power of 10-50 kW, where the powder is heated to molten or semimolten,
Hwang describes atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) with a device for this purpose (note 0040, 0042), where the device/torch can use argon or a mix of argon and nitrogen to obtain a plasma flame (note 0042), where the power can be 35-45 kW, in the claimed range (note 0042), and where the powder for spraying is fed into the plasma flame and the powder is heated to a molten or semimolten state and sprayed onto the substrate (note 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, EITHER Seung OR Brantner, and further in view of Xie to further use APS processing conditions as described by Hwang with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable plasma spraying since Gayden in going on to use APS to spray the particles, and describes that argon or nitrogen gas can be used, where Hwang indicates a mixture of argon and nitrogen can be used for forming a plasma flame as well as argon alone, for example, and notes that the power used for such an APS process and torch can be 35-45 kW, giving a known suggested power to use, and indicates how in APS it is conventional to provide that the powder for spraying is fed into the plasma flame and the powder is heated to a molten or semimolten state and sprayed onto the substrate. Additionally, as to the argon and nitrogen gas being uniformly mixed, this would be suggested so that the results are uniform, with the same amount of argon and nitrogen present as the plasma continues to be formed (note how there is a flow rate for the gas, 0043 of Hwang).
Optionally, further using ‘924, as to the particle diameter used, ‘924 describes how spheroidizing can be understood to be provided for providing material for atmospheric plasma spraying (note page 3, translation, Example), where ‘924 describes how multiple materials can be combined (mixed) (note pages 2-3, translation), variously processed, and then spray dried to form a uniform spherical thermal spray powder having a diameter of 40-50 microns, that will then be coated on a substrate by atmospheric plasma spraying (note pages 2-3, translation, figure 1). ‘924 notes using the term “size” as to the particle diameter and also “particle diameter” (note page 2, translation as to “size of the spheroidized powder”, and page 3, translation, example, as to use of diameter for the same “40 to 50” microns). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, EITHER Seung OR Brantner, and further in view of Xie and Hwang to further use a particle diameter of 40-50 microns for example, as described by ‘924 and in the range of Xie, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Gayden wants to plasma spray powders, and ‘924 indicates a good particle size diameter, in the claimed range, for plasma spraying.
Claim 3: ‘907 further suggests that the metal substrate thickness can be 5-50 microns (page 2, translation), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gayden in view of ‘907, EITHER Seung OR Brantner, and further in view of Xie and Hwang, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘924 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Gayden (US 2016/0254533, hereinafter Gayden ‘533).
Claims 7, 8: As to the substrate heating temperature, and the thickness of the cathode film layer,
Gayden ‘533 further describes applying a cathode/positive electrode layer when making a lithium ion battery (note 0001, 0004, 0035), where the application is by atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) (0029-0030), where it is described that the electrode layer can be up to 200 microns thick (note 0024), and the substrate would be processed through APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C (note 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gayden in view of ‘907, EITHER Seung OR Brantner, and further in view of Xie and Hwang, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘924 to further provide that the substrate is processed through the APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C, and the thickness of the cathode layer is 200 microns or less, as described by Gayden ‘533 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Gayden uses APS spraying to apply the cathode material, and Gayden ‘533 indicates that in a similar process, the substrate is processed through the APS at a heating temperature of less than 150 degrees C, and the thickness of the cathode layer is 200 microns or less, giving suggested features to use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to optimize from the range given for substrate temperature and cathode layer thicknesses, giving values in the claimed ranges. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Dittrich (US 3617358) also notes making spheroid powders for thermal spraying (note the abstract).
Shakespeare et al (US 2009/0214899) notes using a current collector substate 24 which can be made from material such as iron, silver, etc. and cathode material 26 positioned over the collector can be LiCoO2, etc. (note figure 1, 0026-0027). Wood et al (US 2018/0003172) notes how stainless steels are known alloys with iron and chromium, for example (note 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new optional reference to Brantner.
As to the arguments to the rejections using Gayden as the primary reference, it is argued that the cited references would not provide the new limitation of coating a layer of silver onto a substate “consisting essentially of” iron or chromium.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. Firstly as to the rejections using Seung, ‘907 and Seung were cited as to the suggestion that the substrate could be stainless steel coated with silver, where the stainless steel would be a material comprising of iron and also chromium. As to the “consisting essentially of” features, as discussed in the rejection above, the stainless steel substrate can be considered a substrate “consisting essentially of” iron or chromium to the extent claimed, because as discussed in MPEP 2111.03 (III),
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.").
Here, there is no indication that having additional material in the substrate materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, where as noted by original claim 2, the substrate can also be alloys of iron or chromium. Therefore, the phrase “consisting essentially of” has been treated as “comprising”, and the stainless steel described by ‘907 and Seung is understood to be an iron comprising material and also a chromium comprising material.
Secondly, the Examiner also provided an alternate rejection using ‘907 and Brantner as to the suggestion that the substrate could be chromium coated with silver. As to the “consisting essentially of” features, as discussed in the rejection above, since simply chromium can be the substrate material, the material can be considered as being “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of” chromium.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights